In this article, we outline the key legal arguments and considerations of EUIPO underpinning the EUIPO’s ruling.

The "Turkaegean" trademark, which was registered with EUIPO in 2021 by Turkey’s Tourism Promotion Agency, sought exclusive rights to the term for a range of services including, among others, tourism, travel, entertainment and advertising.

Greece challenged the registration in February 2023, by filing a request for a declaration of invalidity against the same before EUIPO.

Greece contended that the term "Turkaegean" directly described the geographical origin of the services, lacked distinctiveness and was registered contrary to public policy and accepted principles of morality. Turkey, on the other hand, argued that the term was a creative and distinctive neologism, and that the application filed by Greece constituted an abuse of rights.

EUIPO reviewed the case, considering evidence submitted by both parties, including dictionary definitions, press articles and reports and found for Greece, thereby, invalidating the "Turkaegean" trademark.

EUIPO's reasoned decision was based on the Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 on the European Union trade mark (EUTMR):

Descriptiveness (Article 7(1)(c) and Article 59(1)(a) of EUTMR):

EUIPO determined that the term "Turkaegean" simply describes the geographical origin of the services and specifically, the “Turkish part of the Aegean region”. Since this region is already widely known as a tourist and travel destination, EUIPO ruled that the word "Turkaegean" would be understood by the relevant public as referring to that region. Because of this, the term was considered too descriptive to be protected as a trademark, as it doesn’t help consumers identify the services as coming from a specific commercial source.

Lack of distinctiveness (Article 7(1)(b) of EUTMR):

The trademark was deemed devoid of distinctive character and unable to distinguish services from Turkey from those of others. The EUIPO noted that the combination of the words "Turk" and "Aegean" conveyed a clear and direct meaning to the relevant public, leaving no room for it to be seen as a unique identifier. Since the term merely described services originating from the “Turkish part of the Aegean region”, the public perceived it as informational rather than distinctive. Additionally, the accompanying stylised element (i.e. the depicted heart with rays) did not add any distinctiveness to the trademark.

Acquired distinctiveness (Article 7(3) and Article 59(2) EUTMR):

Although Turkey did not make a clear claim of acquired distinctiveness, EUIPO found that, in any case, the evidence submitted was insufficient to prove that the trademark had become distinctive through use.

Greece’s application to EUIPO was completely successful and the contested trademark was, therefore, declared invalid for all the contested services.

Additionally, in its decision, EUIPO also considered these legal issues:

Abuse of rights:

The EUIPO dismissed Turkey’s argument that Greece’s application constituted an abuse of rights, reaffirming that in invalidity proceedings based on absolute grounds, an applicant is not required to demonstrate a legitimate interest. Absolute grounds exist to protect the public interest, whereas relative grounds focus on safeguarding the rights of individual proprietors.

Earlier registrations:

EUIPO also dismissed Turkey’s reliance on earlier, successfully registered by Turkey, national and EU trademarks, emphasising that the EU trademark system is autonomous and registrability must be assessed solely under EU law. The cited earlier trademarks differed factually and visually from the “Turkaegean” mark in question, and the principle of equal treatment was held not to justify repeating a potentially unlawful registration.

Assessment of evidence:

EUIPO found that Turkey failed to provide sufficient proof that “Turkaegean” had acquired distinctiveness through use. EUIPO held that claims must be supported primarily by direct evidence, such as surveys or statements from trade associations. Advertising materials, sales figures, or media coverage may support direct proof but cannot, on their own, demonstrate that the relevant public perceives the mark as distinctive.

Turkey filed an appeal against EUIPO’s decision, which is currently pending.

EUIPO’s decision highlights the critical importance of distinctiveness in EU trademark registration. For businesses and legal practitioners alike, it serves as a reminder of the stringent standards applied within the EU trademark framework.

Harneys provides comprehensive services in trademark registration, maintenance and dispute resolution, ensuring that clients are well-supported throughout the lifecycle of their intellectual property rights.

EUIPO’s Cancellation No C 58 927 (INVALIDITY) can be found here.